D&D Next Q&A: 04/25/2014

[Stray]

New Q&A, giving more details about return of Challange Rating, how it affects Solo monsters, and how CR will work with class levels on monsters.

[Lokiare]

What I'm getting from this is that CR is almost completely worthless. It only tells you the ballpark figure when a creature is useful to pit against the players, but level is just as good a comparison or even just HD. So this appears to be a redundant mechanic that pulls a system from 3.5E so that people will see 3.5E in it. If they'd focus more on making a game that everyone likes and less on putting crap in from various editions they might get somewhere. Putting redundant things in just for the sake of familiarity is not going to help people like the game.

[pribnow]

My impression was actually that they pretty much took the same approach as 4E, except that they renamed 'monster of level x' to 'monster with CR x'. So in Next, 4 monsters of CR5 will make an appropriate challenge for a level 5 party. Same as 4E; works for me.

Furthermore, they seem to have wanted to address the 3.5 logic that an NPC of level x can be considered a CR x encounter. Indeed, this does not work. Basically, the article tells us when creating such an NPC, you should look at existing monsters to make an estimate of its Challenge Rating. That may not provide much guidance, but it is definitely a practical way of looking at it.

[1337 b4k4]

What I'm getting from this is that CR is almost completely worthless. It only tells you the ballpark figure when a creature is useful to pit against the players, but level is just as good a comparison or even just HD. So this appears to be a redundant mechanic that pulls a system from 3.5E so that people will see 3.5E in it. If they'd focus more on making a game that everyone likes and less on putting crap in from various editions they might get somewhere. Putting redundant things in just for the sake of familiarity is not going to help people like the game.

It's a bit convoluted, but I think what they're getting at is CR is the "solo" challenge of the monster, and XP is the measure of the monster as a encounter object when encountered at the appropriate level. This allows for situations where a monster might be difficult for low level parties, but once you're on level, is much easier than it's CR would indicate because the party is better equipped to handle the things that made it a CR 5 monster vs a CR 3 monster of the same XP value. So (as a simple off the cuff example) if we were to look at the old "can't be hit by anything less than a +2 sword" thing old D&D, if the game doesn't expect the party to have access to "+2 swords" until level 5, then it would be a CR 5 monster. But once they have access to a +2 sword, it's as difficult to dispatch as an ordinary goblin (and so is a low XP value monster, a mook for the bigger threats at this level).

It could work, but I worry that that presenting both measurement scales might be confusing or alternatively create way too many things to look up just to build a monster. On the other hand, it does address a common issue with single CR/Level ranking systems where how challenging something is is dependant on more than mere relative power to other monsters.

[Stray]

My impression was actually that they pretty much took the same approach as 4E, except that they renamed 'monster of level x' to 'monster with CR x'. So in Next, 4 monsters of CR5 will make an appropriate challenge for a level 5 party. Same as 4E; works for me.

Sadly, CR means what it meant in 3.5 :"The CR of a monster is based on the level at which a party of four player characters could fight that monster and have a moderate-to-challenging fight". They also talk about CR lower than 1.

[pribnow]

Sadly, CR means what it meant in 3.5 :"The CR of a monster is based on the level at which a party of four player characters could fight that monster and have a moderate-to-challenging fight". They also talk about CR lower than 1.

Ah, I see what you mean. The article indeed mentions that in case of a solo monster, "four-on-one serves as the baseline for the CR system" and "if you’re fighting monsters in larger numbers, they’re almost certainly of a CR that is lower than player character level".

However, the article also mentions that the monster's CR is of little significance and that the monsters' (plural!) XP value of an encounter is what matters. So I assume that they will give us some instructions, hopefully a table, on the XP values you need to have when an encounter has more than one monster in it.

[obryn]

It's a bit convoluted
...
It could work, but I worry that that presenting both measurement scales might be confusing or alternatively create way too many things to look up just to build a monster. On the other hand, it does address a common issue with single CR/Level ranking systems where how challenging something is is dependant on more than mere relative power to other monsters.

Yeah, this is a weird one. In all of this context, I'm not sure "CR" has any meaning other than "adding in more 3.x terminology for marketing reasons."

It seems like you're still using XP budgets for encounter building, so CR doesn't serve that function. And XP values need to be a measure of difficulty if you're using them for that purpose, so CR doesn't help there, either.

I think it's hilarious how they mention that assigning difficulty to enemy Wizards is "problematic." YOU DON'T SAY.

[1337 b4k4]

Yeah, this is a weird one. In all of this context, I'm not sure "CR" has any meaning other than "adding in more 3.x terminology for marketing reasons."

It seems like you're still using XP budgets for encounter building, so CR doesn't serve that function. And XP values need to be a measure of difficulty if you're using them for that purpose, so CR doesn't help there, either.

I think it's hilarious how they mention that assigning difficulty to enemy Wizards is "problematic." YOU DON'T SAY.

Eh, like I said above, I think it has meaning and really it means "level" and they acknowledge that fact. They're just looking for another term to mitigate this. But I do agree that if they're going to use XP values for encounter budgeting, there probably needs to be some tie in to CR as well. There should be some ratio or modifier to the XP budget for every CR difference to average party level. So maybe for example, if building a normal encounter with normal CR monsters at the appropriate level is 500XP, then if you add in 2 monsters that are CR +2 above the party, you need to decrease your encounter budgeted by say 100 XP (25XP per CR above level * 2 per monster = 100XP). Alternatively you would simply add the modifier to the XP value of the monster, but the reason I suggest subtracting from the budget is to avoid changing the XP award value for the monster.

[Seerow]

Oh boy let's bring back one of the objectively worst mechanics to come out of 3.5. Everyone should love that!

[Warskull]

Yeah, this is a weird one. In all of this context, I'm not sure "CR" has any meaning other than "adding in more 3.x terminology for marketing reasons."

It seems like you're still using XP budgets for encounter building, so CR doesn't serve that function. And XP values need to be a measure of difficulty if you're using them for that purpose, so CR doesn't help there, either.

I think it's hilarious how they mention that assigning difficulty to enemy Wizards is "problematic." YOU DON'T SAY.

It sounds like Challenge Rating is meant to exist solely as a quick power estimate for the DM. Monsters also might have the same XP value, but different CRs.

CR is short hand. Imagine a digital bestiary, you can search for monsters. Which is easier knowing your level 5 party needs a monster worth X,XXX xp to be a challenged, or telling it you want a list of CR5 monsters?

[DeltaEmil]

Challenge Rating in 3.5 and 3.0 were also power estimate values.

They didn't work there because a 3.x party could be wildly diverging in capabilities and power from a theoretical standard party with a sword and board fighter, a trap-disabling focused rogue who only occasionally flanks to deal sneak attack, a blaster wizard who prepares only fireballs and magic missiles and cone of cold, and a healbot cleric who does nothing in combat but spontaneously convert spells into healing spells to heal during the entire encounter.

One can only hope that 5th edition won't repeat the same mistake.

[Envyus]

The xp value is what actually matters. It works like this say you have two CR 5 monsters the one with the higher XP value is the harder one. CR is just another term for 4e's monster level's as they did not want too many terms using the word level.

Oh boy let's bring back one of the objectively worst mechanics to come out of 3.5. Everyone should love that!

Did you not read the thing it does not work like the way it did in 3.5 it's more like 4th

[Seerow]

Did you not read the thing it does not work like the way it did in 3.5 it's more like 4th

Someone else already addressed this above. If the definition of CR is "A monster of this CR is designed to fight a party of 4 of equal level" and you can have a CR below 1, then you are hitting all of the same mistakes that 3.X had.

4e worked because the xp guidelines let you pick the level of the encounter you were looking for, see the xp budget, and throw monsters in there until it fit. That is not what is being described here at all.

[1of3]

Most of all I'm amazed that now of all times they found a thesaurus. Really... "We’re already using level in two different ways in the game". Then, why don't they talk about Spell Circles or anything?

As for the definition, it would be certainly easier to measure monsters against one PC, so there is an obvious way of scaling. That CR didn't work in 3.x is not a reason though. They might just as easily mess up monster levels or xp budgets or whatever.

[Person_Man]

Challenge Rating in 3.5 and 3.0 were also power estimate values.

They didn't work there because a 3.x party could be wildly diverging in capabilities and power from a theoretical standard party.

+1

After maybe 1 or 2 of my first games DMing 3.0, I never used Challenge Rating or RAW Experience Points calculations. They just didn't function as intended.

Challenge Rating is a good idea in theory. But it order for it to work in practice, you would need a very explicit range of To-Hit/AC/Saves/Hit-Points/average damage/etc for both players and monsters at each level, so that you can easily calculate the chance of success. But rather then starting with the math and then building a game around it, they started with a bunch of game elements and are kludging the math as they go. (Which in all fairness to them, is exactly how 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder was written).

Honestly, it wouldn't be that hard. It just requires a commitment to actually implementing the concept of Bounded Accuracy, and not allowing extra stackable bonuses to creep in from other spells/abilities/items/Feats/etc.

[Lokiare]

+1

After maybe 1 or 2 of my first games DMing 3.0, I never used Challenge Rating or RAW Experience Points calculations. They just didn't function as intended.

Challenge Rating is a good idea in theory. But it order for it to work in practice, you would need a very explicit range of To-Hit/AC/Saves/Hit-Points/average damage/etc for both players and monsters at each level, so that you can easily calculate the chance of success. But rather then starting with the math and then building a game around it, they started with a bunch of game elements and are kludging the math as they go. (Which in all fairness to them, is exactly how 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder was written).

Honestly, it wouldn't be that hard. It just requires a commitment to actually implementing the concept of Bounded Accuracy, and not allowing extra stackable bonuses to creep in from other spells/abilities/items/Feats/etc.

The real problem is they aren't able to calculate the effectiveness of non-damaging spells to the outcome a combat. They could easily do this with software that game developers use to check out variables when game testing. They run scripts that insert ranges of values in different variables and run math calculations that the game uses on them, then they spit out the results. This is repeated with different variable values over and over thousands of times per second. They could use this to simulate the numbers in combat to see what happens to certain outcomes like party remaining hp, resource (spells, magic items, potions, scrolls, hit dice) use, and how many rounds the combat was to get an idea of the equivalent values of non-damage spells to damaging effects in battle. I don't think they will do this though.

[Envyus]

The real problem is they aren't able to calculate the effectiveness of non-damaging spells to the outcome a combat. They could easily do this with software that game developers use to check out variables when game testing. They run scripts that insert ranges of values in different variables and run math calculations that the game uses on them, then they spit out the results. This is repeated with different variable values over and over thousands of times per second. They could use this to simulate the numbers in combat to see what happens to certain outcomes like party remaining hp, resource (spells, magic items, potions, scrolls, hit dice) use, and how many rounds the combat was to get an idea of the equivalent values of non-damage spells to damaging effects in battle. I don't think they will do this though.

They don't take into account damaging spells ether as far as we know just that a character is a caster and this is way way too complicated and you know it.

[captpike]

They don't take into account damaging spells ether as far as we know just that a character is a caster and this is way way too complicated and you know it.

it is very complicated, but it would be worth doing because there NEEDS to be a way for a DM to know how hard a fight is going to be, its a basic necessity of the game.

[Envyus]

it is very complicated, but it would be worth doing because there NEEDS to be a way for a DM to know how hard a fight is going to be, its a basic necessity of the game.

The way they do it will probably be fine and it's less complicated.

[captpike]

The way they do it will probably be fine and it's less complicated.

if it does not take into account the more powerful spells then it wont be good enough, nor would it be good enough if it does not account from the full range of power at each level.

it needs to work for a group of unoptimized PCs just as much as for a group of min-maxed PCs who are all playing casters

[Morty]

They don't take into account damaging spells ether as far as we know just that a character is a caster and this is way way too complicated and you know it.

"Just eyeball it if the character is a spellcaster" doesn't sound like a terribly sound design process to me.

[Lokiare]

"Just eyeball it if the character is a spellcaster" doesn't sound like a terribly sound design process to me.

Sadly "just eyeball it" has been the entire design process from start to finish.

[Envyus]

Sadly "just eyeball it" has been the entire design process from start to finish.

You don't know that and I would like you to stop making statements as if they were facts.

[archaeo]

"Just eyeball it if the character is a spellcaster" doesn't sound like a terribly sound design process to me.

Isn't it, though? I mean, I wouldn't use those exact words, preferring something like "Because of the variability of spellcasters' power, DMs should deploy these enemies with care and play them in a way that creates the correct level of threat."

CR sounds to me like an indexing solution. It's a clean, easy-to-read method for organizing monsters by rough power level, along with a system that allows you to assess the power level of monsters you've developed yourself. The fact that this index isn't sufficiently granular to catch every permutation of the power gradient seems like a feature, not a bug, especially given the fact that humans are playing these characters. The only time it's really a problem is when DMs play like computers, always selecting the optimal move on every given turn and "playing to win."

I'd also guess that making it more granular than it currently is would add a lot more cognitive overhead to monster creation and monster deployment, something that D&D Next goes to great lengths to avoid.

[Lokiare]

You don't know that and I would like you to stop making statements as if they were facts.

Sorry to burst your bubble there, but take a look at these quotes:

You can create individual encounters, stock a dungeon level from that budget, or simply use the math as a guideline for winging it.
--L&L 4/21/2014

Winging it is eyeballing it.

DMs can use this part of the campaign to start slow and build toward bigger things. Levels 1 and 2 are your chance to experiment a bit. You can lay down the foundations and boundaries for the campaign. You can kick the tires on any optional rules you'd like to use.
--L&L 1/20/2014

kicking the tires is eyeballing it.

Beginner groups might want to use slower advancement at 1st and 2nd level to spend even more time getting a feel for their characters and the game world.
-- L&L 1/13/2014

getting a feel is eyeballing it.

I could go on and on, but you should get the point by now. Nearly every rule based article has some form of 'eyeball it' included for either the designers, the players, or the DM. Its been all through the design process.

Isn't it, though? I mean, I wouldn't use those exact words, preferring something like "Because of the variability of spellcasters' power, DMs should deploy these enemies with care and play them in a way that creates the correct level of threat."

CR sounds to me like an indexing solution. It's a clean, easy-to-read method for organizing monsters by rough power level, along with a system that allows you to assess the power level of monsters you've developed yourself. The fact that this index isn't sufficiently granular to catch every permutation of the power gradient seems like a feature, not a bug, especially given the fact that humans are playing these characters. The only time it's really a problem is when DMs play like computers, always selecting the optimal move on every given turn and "playing to win."

I'd also guess that making it more granular than it currently is would add a lot more cognitive overhead to monster creation and monster deployment, something that D&D Next goes to great lengths to avoid.

This works great for extremely experienced DMs that can guesstimate probability math in their head. For the rest of us, not so much. "Eyeball it" draws on years of experience that your subconscious mind sifts through and does all the calculations for you. So that you can instantly spit out a response. This only works when you have those years and years of experience. If you don't your subconscious mind spits out a nearly random response that likely won't work.

[1337 b4k4]

Sorry to burst your bubble there, but take a look at these quotes:



Winging it is eyeballing it.



kicking the tires is eyeballing it.



getting a feel is eyeballing it.

And not a single one of those quotes is evidence for, and I quote:

Sadly "just eyeball it" has been the entire design process from start to finish.

Edit
-------
Also seriously the only one of those 3 quotes that says something even remotely analagous to "eyeballing it" is the one about DMs being able to "wing it" from a series of guidelines. Neither the idioms "kick the tires" nor "get a feel for [X]" are about eyeballing something.

[Icewraith]

"Eyeball it" draws on years of experience that your subconscious mind sifts through and does all the calculations for you. So that you can instantly spit out a response. This only works when you have those years and years of experience. If you don't your subconscious mind spits out a nearly random response that likely won't work.

How else do you learn how to eyeball things aside from putting forward your best answer and finding out how wrong you were?

[archaeo]

This works great for extremely experienced DMs that can guesstimate probability math in their head. For the rest of us, not so much. "Eyeball it" draws on years of experience that your subconscious mind sifts through and does all the calculations for you. So that you can instantly spit out a response. This only works when you have those years and years of experience. If you don't your subconscious mind spits out a nearly random response that likely won't work.

I think you're vastly overestimating the degree of difficulty here. For one thing, you're basically saying that WotC will definitely be incompetent at designing a CR system that correctly predicts difficulty. As a 4e fan, do you think they screwed this up frequently? Given your enjoyment of that game, which I understand had a robust system of XP budgets that 5e is borrowing, how can you really believe they'll ruin it so easily?

But more importantly, you're also underestimating the common sense of new players. I've never DM'd a game in my life, but it's not rocket science dialing back the difficulty or playing with greater optimality. It's hardly difficult to say, "Oh, this wizard could totally shut down my players, and I didn't realize it until now," and have tons of great options for recovering the sequence, from letting the battle play out as a loss while not killing the players to simply holding back on the enemy wizard's kill spell.

I appreciate that an imperfect CR system stymies DMs and players who want a robust tactical game with exquisite balance and whatnot. But the idea that it will be somehow difficult for new players to grasp? Please.

e: also, I just want to back up 1337 b4k4 here: your examples of "eyeballing it" as a big problem are totally laughable. That's hardly demanding much of players; indeed, if anything, it's hyperfriendly for new players, a nice, easy introduction to simple mechanics. Your suggestion that it has anything to do with the problem of putting the correct monster in play is a bizarre non-sequiter.

[Raine_Sage]

While I would agree it's a little early to start calling foul on the CR system as is, I think the difference between eyeballing difficulty here and 4ed is the vancian casting system with all magic drawing from roughly the same pool of resources.

In 4ed monsters and PCs had very different resources at their disposal. It's commonly accepted fact that PvP in 4ed turns into rocket tag because the powers PCs are vastly stronger than the powers Monsters have. The common answer to anyone asking how to give 4ed monsters PC class powers is "don't." In 5ed the fireball your wizard has is the exact same fireball the goblin has.

However I feel like it might make it easier for a DM to eyeball, not harder. All you have to do is watch your players. If there's one spell that consistently shuts down an encounter, then maybe don't give it to the opposition. Or do, I guess, if you want to make the players hurt a bit.

[1337 b4k4]

While I would agree it's a little early to start calling foul on the CR system as is, I think the difference between eyeballing difficulty here and 4ed is the vancian casting system with all magic drawing from roughly the same pool of resources.

It's not "vancian" magic per se that's the difference, so much as 4e doesn't really have a "magic" system. Yes, they had rituals, but for round to round combat, magic in 4e was no different than any other attack or power. By getting rid of a lot of the utility type spells, and reducing almost all the long term ones to durations of 1 turn unless sustained with a minor action, they eliminated a lot of the potential for spell stacking that other magic systems provide.

In 4ed monsters and PCs had very different resources at their disposal. It's commonly accepted fact that PvP in 4ed turns into rocket tag because the powers PCs are vastly stronger than the powers Monsters have. The common answer to anyone asking how to give 4ed monsters PC class powers is "don't." In 5ed the fireball your wizard has is the exact same fireball the goblin has.

This is completely spot on. The way to solve the issue of "goblins with levels of Mage" is "don't give goblins levels of Mage". NPCs and PCs serve very different mechanical roles and the mechanics that power them should reflect the difference in those roles. Spell caster monsters should have specific spells that they are commonly found with and rarely with a full compliment. The only time the PCs should ever come up against an NPC spell caster with a full compliment of spells from the full list of spells is when they're up against a BBEG, in which case you intend for things to be tough.